The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing AT&T customers, filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies responsible for "massively illegal" warrantless surveillance of internet and telephone communications over the past several years.

Along with the NSA, the EFF is accusing President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and several others in the lawsuit. The EFF hopes by naming the president, vice president and other high-ranking government officials will help ensure similar action does not take place in the future.

"For years, the NSA has been engaged in a massive and massively illegal fishing expedition through AT&T's domestic networks and databases of customer records. Our goal in this new case against the government, as in our case against AT&T, is to dismantle this dragnet surveillance program as soon as possible."

The NSA reportedly created a wiretapping center in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Atlanta, and Bridgeton, where the government agency monitored data from millions of phone conversations and internet chat logs by AT&T users, with the phone company's help.

The program was first unveiled by former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who first leaked information about the program two years ago.

There are more than 35 active lawsuits against the U.S. federal government due to its warrantless wire tapping.

In February, the FISA bill passed, which ensured telecommunication conglomerates cannot be held liable from litigation if they provided assistance to the NSA or other government agencies. But the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are trying to prove the law is unconstitutional, and want to have it changed so the major telecommunication companies can be held responsible.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Though out the history of the USA the security of the nation has always trumped rights. Just ask a person of US citizens of Japanese descent about 1942. The censored mail during WWII. Revocation of habeas corpus during the Civil War. I could go on but the point I make is that the constitution holds the government at the highest standard for preventing violence upon the citizens by those inside and outside the nation. Fail in that respect and the government has failed in its primary duty.

In the mind of the politician live citizens vote for you dead ones don't. And angry relatives of dead citizens remember who didn't keep the dead ones alive.

Nobody is dissolving anything. The countries you mention keep tabs on their citizens because they wish to stay in power. The US and other western countries are sifting through emails, voice and data communications to keep the citizens of their respective countries alive and reasonably happy. Oh and paying taxes too.

Do you really think that anyone is reading your email because you said something angry about your local city council? Because if you do you really need to get some counseling. The world does not revolve around you.

Every time that security has trumped rights, it was either regarded as a mistake, a necessity for upholding the republic, or a temporary measure to ensure a short term objective.

Terrorism is a constant, unyielding and persistent part of the world, it was long before 9/11 and will be long afterward.

Unchecked power is exactly the reason for the creation of the constitution, and while 'security' is being heralded as the reason for these measures enacted upon the populace, it is contrary to the origins of the public contract that the constitution embodies.

As citizens we are the origin of the government's power and ultimately its aim and end. Placing security ahead of the populace is exactly why the constitution was created - Kings who embody the state can act with unchecked power.

The US government can collect and listen in on communications and internet traffic between people in other countries without a warrant, they always have and probably always will. I don't know of anyone on the right or left that wants to stop it.

When the spying involves someone in the US, the government must apply for a search warrant within 48 hours. The court they go to is the FISA court. The court is made up of retired federal judges more than half of them Republicans.

Since the time the FISA court was created they had approved every warrant they were ever presented with until they saw some of the things the Bush Administration wanted to do, and they had to put their foot down.

Once the FISA court had said no, the Bush Admin just stopped asking for warrants, and did what they wanted to without asking.

We still don't know what it was they were doing and probably never will. But it was too much for John Ashcroft and many of his appointees. Ashcroft is no Liberal, he was one of the most conservative Senators before he become Bush's Attorney General.

Both Ashcroft and the FBI director told Bush they would resign and go public if Bush didn't stop whatever it was he was doing. They reached a compromise which is the still illegal program revealed by Klein, who is a hero.

But we may never know what it was they were doing, that even John Ashcroft couldn't stomach.

It is also important to note that 9/11 happened not because we didn't do enough spying. We had significant good intelligence that Bin-Ladin wanted to make a big attack in the US, that radical Muslims were very interested in learning how to fly jet liners, but not to land them, as well as numerous smaller tid-bits that should have been put together. Bush wanted to go fishing.

Similar bits of information led the Clinton Administration to prevent the millennium attacks in LA. The Bush administration ignored the Clinton's administrations warnings about Bin-Ladin, and were asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened.

No the Bush administration ignored Richard Clark. Why? Becuase he ranted and raved about this Bin Laden issue, yet would never admit that he failed to pull the trigger himself or take other significant action against Al-Qaeda. He was unwilling to accept blame, so Rice ignored him.

Yep one man, made himself untrustworthy in the eyes of the present administration. Unfortunately he was the "expert" on Al-Qaeda.

And BTW 20/20 hindsight on the targets for 9/11 is a cheap shot. And thanks to Gore , the present Admin could not do Jack about airplane security.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. Rice ignored Clarke because he wouldn't admit that he took no action against Al-Qaeda? Where did you hear that nonsense? Rice didn't listen because she had no interest in Al-Qaeda until after 9/11, and then she tried to claim no one knew they could fly airplanes into buildings. Even if what you say is true, which is doubtful, how does that justify the Bush Admin just ignoring the threats that Clarke told them of?

Cheap shot, but true.

I have no idea what sort of nonsense you are trying to peddle about Gore.

And you post contains double negatives. so because your other reply was decent I reply.

Rice ignored Clarke because Clarke claimed Al-Qaeda was the boogeyman yet he had taken no action. Clarke refused to take the blame for taking no action. Therefore Rice ignored him on the subject because his argument was not rational with regards to Clarke's actions.

As for Gore, remember that failed piece of air safety legislation he sponsored? Thanks to the bad taste it left, the Bush WH wanted nothing to do with that subject.

The millenium attacks were foiled by an attentive border guard, not the Clinton administration.

If Clinton was aware of the 9-11 planners why did he not arrest them? Much of the planning went on during his administration. The firewall built between the CIA and the FBI was imposed by him. Do I really need to list all the attacks on Americans and American interests around the globe that went ignored during Clinton's administration? Terrorism was a backburner issue for everyone; 9-11 changed that.

The information obtained by the border guard was the trigger that Richard Clarke and others in the Clinton administration used to focus resources and uncover the plot.

If the Bush Admin had been as attentive to the information they were presented with, like that guy who was taking flying lessons in Minnesota, or the other info in the August Presidential briefing, and took similar actions 9/11 might have been prevented.

The firewall nonsense is just one of the Bush Admin excuses that doesn't add up. Firewall or not the information was there if they had been interested. Bush wanted to go fishing.

When did I say Clinton was aware of 9/11 planners? If you want to list all the attacks on Americans and American interests during the Clinton Admin, be sure to do the same for the Bush Admin, you'll be surprised.

Bin-Ladin was not a back burner issue for the Clinton Admin. There were weekly meetings in the White House to review the latest intelligence. Those meetings ended when Bush came in.

Rice was told by the Clinton Admin that Bin-Laden should be her top priority. She didn't think about him again until after 9/11.

Like the government upheld the second amendment in New York, Chicago, and all those places were guns were denied to minorities. The NRA was around much longer than the EFF yet if you don't get consensus , you don't get constitutionality.

Well, it was only 40 years ago that it was decided that tapping a phone constituted an unreasonable search, in violation of the 4th Amendment (Katz v. US, 1967). The court has previously (Olmstead v. US, 1928) decided the reverse, that there was not reasonable expectation of privacy on a telephone call over a public network.

Of course, I 100% agree that the administration broke the law in eavesdropping on people within the United States - but I think it may be taking the argument too far to say that it violates the Constitution. It certainly violates the current interpretation of the 4th Amendment, as described in Katz. But that precedent, set by the Warren Court, could be reversed by a future court, while still upholding the Constitution.